| |
At 04:36 PM 8/15/99 , Todd Lehman wrote:
> TimC and AdamH are putting together a CFV motion. There may be several
> semi-overlapping and/or independent options to consider:
>
> 1) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev
> 2) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
> 3) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev.dat.parts.*
> 4) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev.dat.*
> 5) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.*
> 5) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.*
> 6) fill-in-the-blank
>
> As I understand it, some mix of the above would be the outcome if a
> delivered ultimatum was not met within some proscribed time period.
About these voting options, the votes for a more severe restriction should
carry over to a less severe restriction if that particular restriction
recieves the 2/3 majority votes. For example:
25% vote for removal from lugnet.*
50% vote for removal from lugnet.cad.*
25% vote not to remove JW's privileges at all
Now this is an oversimplification of the case, but this is to prove a point
and kill a headache on my part by making things a little mroe realistic :)
The votes for lugnet.* would be counted as votes for lugnet.cad.* since
cad.* is included under lugnet.* and lugnet.cad.* received more
votes. This would push the votes for lugnet.cad.* to 75%, thus exceeding
the 2/3 majority requirement.
-Tim <><
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
Commonwealth Edison: What do you do with OUR power?
Get paid to surf the web! Visit:
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=DGO655
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| I support what you are trying to do in the voting but it may be more straightforward to present a series of up/down propositions and commentary that the broader ones will supercede the narrower ones if passed. (...) Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com (...) (25 years ago, 16-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) That doesn't follow. The choices aren't mutually exclusive, are they? I thought these were separate, independently voted-upon percentages. If so, then they can't be combined mathematically as described above. Consider: If you had 95% vote for (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) Absolutely. It goes on frequently in the world. (...) Ideally, it should be for the good of both. Hurting another's feelings isn't the issue (though it happens), and it never should be when there are things to be gained by both sides in a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
146 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
